Hello! In Shakespeare in Love we see Will kind of being the director of the play, but was it actually like that in the early modern period? Was the author of a play the director, too? (Was there even a director per se?). I find this so interesting :)
As far as we know, there was no such thing as a director in the early modern period. The plays were barely even rehearsed, so the idea that someone would have some kind of unified artistic vision doesn’t quite work. The play was written, all the actors were given their parts (and only their parts – not the whole play) to read and memorise, the main characters might then read the lines through together, they would rehearse the dances and fights and then perform the thing. The only other things they had to aid the performance was a ‘plot’ backstage in the ‘tiring house’ that listed the exits and entrances, and a prompter (who did have the whole play) in case anyone forgot their lines.
But in a broader sense, the author of the play does control the action through the way he writes. The obvious one is when there are small embedded stage directions in people’s lines. For instance, when Cordelia says ‘no, sir, you must not kneel’ (4.7.59), the suggestion is that Lear kneels or attempts to kneel before her. Another example is in Macbeth when Lady Macbeth says
My hands are of your colour; but I shameTo wear a heart so white. I hear a knockingAt the south entry:—retire we to our chamber.A little water clears us of this deed:How easy is it then! Your constancyHath left you unattended.— Hark! more knocking. (2.2.63-68)
Modern editions will add stage directions for those knocks, but it’s only implied in the Folio. Other ways the writing affects the action can be simple things like diction, repetition, the way the blank verse flows, how many breaks there are in the dialogue (now often indicated by punctuation) and – very important for early modern drama – cues.
You’ll get an indication of this if you try reading something like Othello’s parts out loud, especially the latter half. Of course it’ll probably sound even better rehearsed, but the way it’s written forces one to speed up, slow down, sound out of breath or emotional just by reading it. This is what experienced directors of Shakespeare mean when they say obey the text. So in a sense, the author makes the player act a character a certain way, directing them through the text.
A similar thing is going on with the cues. As you probably know, a cue is a line an actor waits to hear before they respond with their own line. In modern performances, it’s likely that both actors know the other actor’s full line and will wait until the end, but in the early modern period, when actors were only given their cue and their own lines, they would respond to a shorter phrase and wouldn’t know the whole line. Take this following example from the Merchant of Venice:
SHYLOCKThere I have another bad match: a bankrupt, a prodigal, who dare scarce show his head on the Rialto, a beggar that was used to come so smug upon the mart. Let him look to his bond. He was wont to call me usurer; let him look to his bond. He was wont to lend money for a Christian courtesy; let him look to his bond.
SALARINOWhy, I am sure if he forfeit, thou wilt not take his flesh. What’s that good for? (3.1.39-47)
Salarino’s cue would be ‘–let him look to his bond’. That’s all the actor has to go on. But Shylock says the phrase three times, meaning that the actor playing Salarino would attempt to interrupt Shylock twice before he gets to say his own line. This isn’t the only instance Shakespeare gives false cues, in fact, it’s a technique he frequently uses to make characters interact with one another organically on stage. Simon Palfrey and Tiffany Stern have written extensively about this, so if you’re very interested in the topic, I would recommend reading their book, Shakespeare in Parts.
So, while there isn’t really such a thing as a director, there are certainly ways in which the author does control the action and acting in the play through the way the play is written.
